Crime happens regardless of the laws. That’s why it’s crime. There are always nutters out there who want to kill, and they will always find ways. However, the access to more efficient means of mass murder can be controlled, and in Canada’s case (and as a Canadian), I think it works – for Canadians, in Canada.

There are many reasons for this, but one of them is that handgun ownership is very difficult (I know the Moncton shooter used rifles), and there is no culture of guns for personal defence (except against bears). Generally speaking, we’re pretty comfortable with guns, in our own way.

Americans have their culture, and their constitutional right to bear arms. Fine. That’s your right and privilege, and I defend that, even in the face of some of my more anti-gun country men. But Canada is not the US, and our laws and culture are not yours. Using a (very rare, even when the population differences are accounted for) shooting in Canada to make a point about your views on gun control is a bit crass. It’s an outlier. Nowhere is free of loonies killing people, guns or no- but we do have stronger gun control laws, and we have far lower incidences of gun homicide.

All mass shootings are outliers. The points being made are not crass or unjustified – they tie in directly with what you’re saying. Canada and the US have massive cultural differences, Canada has better mental health care, Canada has tighter gun restrictions; and yet the same sort of tragedy can happen there as here. (They do differ in that the Moncton shooter appears to have used more-deadly fully-automatic rather than semi-automatic weapons; to my knowledge, fully-automatic weapons have not been used in a US mass shooting since before the NFA of 1934.) This defies the frequent cry of “if we enact strict gun control, we can stop this sort of thing from happening,” and this is why we’re pointing this incident out.

Your point about handgun ownership has some validity–the overwhelming majority of US shootings are done with pistols against one or a small number of people (and, as Kellerman & Reay found in 1988, take place in subcultures that essentially don’t exist in Canada). However, most of the recent gun-control initiatives in the US have not targeted handguns or the most common US shootings; they have targeted “assault weapons” and the rare mass shootings.

Wouldn’t this be a perfect time for one of those “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” signs? Mick could point to it and say “Today, you’re it. Get Out!” If Tom persists in being an ass, just call the cops and charge him with trespassing, because he refused to leave. Not like they need his money anyway.

I’ve never known a gunstore that kept the display guns loaded, or kept loaded magazines handy for them.

OTOH, pretty much everyone who works in a gun store (not WalMart; a real gun store) is wearing a pistol, and in every shop where I’ve been behind the counter, there’s a loaded rifle or shotgun (not for sale) back there.

As I was told my first day as a gun pimp, “If anyone comes in here to rob us, you can pretty much count on them planning on killing all of us.”

There was some dimwit in Delaware about a dozen years ago who tried to rob Miller’s Gun Center (well-known gun shop in New Castle, the other big one that’s well known is X-Ring). He walked past a *marked state police cruiser* to do so. Needless to say he didn’t get far. He was lucky to only be arrested and charged with robbery.

I’d like to see a woman really take on the whole “owning guns is just a substitute for a small penis”. I serious doubt these people don’t own guns because they have penii so large they can bludgeon attackers into submission with it.

The two ranges where I am the CRSO are owned by a woman. I am one of the managers at the second location and half of our staff are ladies. Most of them are more knowledgeable about firearms than most of the guys working at the big box stores. It will be interesting to see where this plot line goes.